|
| Thread: Good and Evil Terms transfered to Physics |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 · «PREV |
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
posted December 08, 2013 03:59 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 04:02, 08 Dec 2013.
|
Your efforts of purifying the mind and body are not scientific. Subjective experience is not experiment (at least scientifically, it can work while creating art). Positive sciences are called positive sciences for a reason. Your experiences can be decieving, you can trick yourself into wishful thinking. Besides, there is absolutely no relevance between feeling pure and objectively interpreting collected data, you are misguided in your conceptualizations.
yogi said:
artu said:
He could have said stars and planets as far as we can tell,
no, i couldn't have, as it would have denoted a different energetic relationship. stars and black-holes is exactly what i meant when discussing the complimentary forces that kinetic existence is comprised of. stars and planets is more connotative of the relationship between parent and child entities/forces.
Unfortunately, physicians dont base their work on metaphors.
|
|
yogi
Promising
Famous Hero
of picnics
|
|
posted December 08, 2013 04:30 AM |
|
Edited by yogi at 04:37, 08 Dec 2013.
|
artu said:
Your efforts of purifying the mind and body are not scientific.
on the contrary, they are extremely scientific. you project and assume, and would be better served by asking. we are simply discussing objective health for the human being, a science with thousands of years of data to refer to. aside from slight neurochemical differences we are all nearly identical - the requirements for a healthy body and a sharp mind are the same for all of us. what's not scientific is attempting to think clearly on a gut full of alcohol and red meat and a mind full of cultural incentives, while making "objective" propositions. truly objective propositions can only be put forth by extremely healthy people.
artu said:
Subjective experience is not experiment (at least scientifically, it can work while creating art). Positive sciences are called positive sciences for a reason. Your experiences can be decieving, you can trick yourself into wishful thinking.
how many people must perform the same experiment and make the same claims before their experiences are regarded as objectively true? millions of people have come to the same conclusions, many of them highly regarded positivistic scientists. research: vedanta.
have you performed all the experiments that you are basing your perspective on, or are you just reiterating somebody elses work?
artu said:
Besides, there is absolutely no relevance between feeling pure and objectively interpreting collected data, you are misguided in your conceptualizations.
the purity i am referring to is a state of extreme health.
artu said:
Unfortunately, physicians dont base their work on metaphors.
yes, they do. scientists have been using metaphors to understand and teach relationships for hundreds if not thousands of years. i am a physicist and an engineer, and i do.
"physicians" also use metaphors to understand and describe the inner workings of the human body all the time.
again, i have recommended some amazing literature by men much more versed in this subject than i if these lines of thought truly intrigue you.
____________
yogi - class: monk | status: healthy
"Lol we are HC'ers.. The same tribe.. Guy!" ~Ghost
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted December 08, 2013 04:56 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 04:59, 08 Dec 2013.
|
You confuse being things and having things with basing science on them. Scientists using metaphors doesn't mean they base their science on it Having a perfect health is an advantage for many things and working with a clearer mind can be one of them, it definitely does not mean scientific research is created by a perfect state of health.
Quote:
have you performed all the experiments that you are basing you perspective on, or are you just reiterating somebody elses work?
I don't have to be a scientist myself to understand the basics of scientific methodology. Besides, it's literally impossible for anybody to do all the experiments by themselves so that doesn't make sense.
Quote:
how many people must perform the same experiment and make the same claims before their experiences are regarded as objectively true? millions of people have come to the same conclusions, many of them highly regarded positivistic scientists. research: vedanta.
Not this again! Vedanta is cultural , just like Allah or Mother Mary is cultural, people "experiencing" the presence of these is totally subjective matter because we're not mind readers and there's no way to tell what is really being experienced. Besides, they all have millions of believers and they all can't be true at the same time. There are very simple and materialistic explanations for such experiences, humans can convince themselves to pretty much anything within the limits of psychological motivation. It's not a mystery.
Quote:
we are simply discussing objective health for the human being, a science with thousands of years of data to refer to.
No, we're not. You're simply making up a potpourri of a cosmology sprinkling "God, Big Bang, Singularity, Nirvana, Silent Consciousness, Father Sky etc."
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted December 08, 2013 05:52 AM |
|
|
I'm a scientist and I have absolutely no idea wth yogi is going on about. I agree with him on one thing: it's certainly not pseudoscience. That's at least coherent. This is plain gibberish. Potential > gas > plasma liquid > solid, kinetic, blah blah. It's just strings of words with no meaning.
Maybe the writers he alludes to make some kind of sense, but the last six or seven posts here certainly don't.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
yogi
Promising
Famous Hero
of picnics
|
|
posted December 08, 2013 09:41 AM |
|
Edited by yogi at 10:50, 08 Dec 2013.
|
artu said:
You confuse being things and having things with basing science on them. Scientists using metaphors doesn't mean they base their science on it
i don't know what "basing science on metaphor" means, or is referring to? the words don't compute. i know what science is, i know what a metaphor is, i know what basing something off of something else is, but the combination of the words as such is meaningless to me? if you are referring to something i've said please clarify your critique.
artu said:
Having a perfect health is an advantage for many things and working with a clearer mind can be one of them, it definitely does not mean scientific research is created by a perfect state of health.
i'm not sure how the meaning of the following sentence is escaping you: "truly objective propositions can only be put forth by extremely healthy people." should i attempt to clarify my point again?
artu said:
I don't have to be a scientist myself to understand the basics of scientific methodology. Besides, it's literally impossible for anybody to do all the experiments by themselves so that doesn't make sense.
no, it is not impossible. any time an assertion is made you check and balance it with what you already know to be true. gravity - check. why do you decide to believe one group's assertions over another's if you don't perform any experiments to validate eithers' for yourself?
artu said:
Not this again! Vedanta is cultural , just like Allah or Mother Mary is cultural, people "experiencing" the presence of these is totally subjective matter because we're not mind readers and there's no way to tell what is really being experienced. Besides, they all have millions of believers and they all can't be true at the same time. There are very simple and materialistic explanations for such experiences, humans can convince themselves to pretty much anything within the limits of psychological motivation. It's not a mystery.
vedanta is not a deity, it's a philosophical school, no more cultural at it's heart than geometry is egyptian. i suggested you do some research into it, and if you can get past the cultural semantics, i still do. schrödinger, tesla, oppenheimer, and newton were able to. try googling vedanta + physics.
artu said:
No, we're not.
yes, we are: "the purity i am referring to is a state of extreme health."
artu said:
You're simply making up a potpourri of a cosmology sprinkling "God, Big Bang, Singularity, Nirvana, Silent Consciousness, Father Sky etc."
i was attempting to get semantics out of the way early in the conversation, by relating the concept of energy in a purely potential state to many common delineations, so that we might actually discuss the possibility of deriving ethical methodologies from the laws of nature/physics/energy. so far i've failed, and we're still stuck in semantics. honestly it doesn't really seem like you're interested in understanding my assertions as much as you are in dismissing them, without doing any research. this will not make for a very good conversation, and will not hold my attention for very long.
are we still discussing whether or not consciousness is energy?
what's your point?
____________
yogi - class: monk | status: healthy
"Lol we are HC'ers.. The same tribe.. Guy!" ~Ghost
|
|
yogi
Promising
Famous Hero
of picnics
|
|
posted December 08, 2013 09:58 AM |
|
|
Corribus said:
I'm a scientist and I have absolutely no idea wth yogi is going on about. I agree with him on one thing: it's certainly not pseudoscience. That's at least coherent. This is plain gibberish. Potential > gas > plasma liquid > solid, kinetic, blah blah. It's just strings of words with no meaning.
energy = potential or kinetic.
kinetic energy = matter.
matter = solid, liquid, plasma, or gas.
the different states of matter = simply distinctions in particle density, formation, and excitation.
particles themselves are comprised of energy.
mc2=e
does it say "scientist" on your business card?
here is a video by garrett lisi that you may or may not get something out of: http://www.ted.com/talks/garrett_lisi_on_his_theory_of_everything.html
Corribus said:
Maybe the writers he alludes to make some kind of sense,
they make a lot more sense, i highly recommend them.
Corribus said:
but the last six or seven posts here certainly don't.
all you have to do is ask for additional clarity, and i will do my best to accommodate.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted December 08, 2013 02:17 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 14:25, 08 Dec 2013.
|
Quote:
i don't know what "basing science on metaphor" means, or is referring to?
Things like "masculine and feminine as synonyms for the congruent, complimentary, opposing forces that comprise kinetic existence." Metaphors are built on association of resemblance, yet, they are not built on causality. For example, the astrologers say Mars (the red planet) is the planet of war for red symbolizes blood. But red (blood) can also symbolize the opposite, brotherhood, as it does in the French flag. Just like that, stars can be thought of feminine entities because they give birth to planets and all the elements that shape us, instead of masculine entities as opposed to black holes. The symmetry (the dualism) you are trying to build is completely based on arbitrary symbolism and can not be measured scientifically and therefore it is not even falsifiable. It actually boils down to a Woody Allen joke, talking to a prostitute:
-You know that the universe is falling apart? You know what a black hole is?
-Yeah, baby. That's how I make my living.
Quote:
i'm not sure how the meaning of the following sentence is escaping you: "truly objective propositions can only be put forth by extremely healthy people." should i attempt to clarify my point again?
Nothing's escaping me. It is just completely false. Even the life story of Marie Curie is enough to refute that. You don't have a point, you have a fantasy.
Quote:
no, it is not impossible. any time an assertion is made you check and balance it with what you already know to be true. gravity - check. why do you decide to believe one group's assertions over another's if you don't perform any experiments to validate eithers' for yourself?
Not every scientific discovery is as observable as gravity for the naked eye. Besides, you don't see the theory of gravity, you only see things falling down, not the explanation why they do. Anyway, this is so ridiculous I don't know even where to begin.
Quote:
vedanta is not a deity, it's a philosophical school, no more cultural at it's heart than geometry is egyptian.
I know it is not a deity itself, but it's not a philosophical school in the sense that Skeptics or Sofists are. It's based on religious Hindu text and their deities. Since Hinduism is like a maze of deities, I can't remember the exact details right now, but Vedanta is not universal like mathematics. It is organically tied to Hinduism, if you don't accept the existence of Hinduism (cultural), Vedanta means nothing:
All sub-schools of the vedanta propound their philosophy by interpreting the Prasthanatrayi, literally, three sources, the three canonical texts of Hindu philosophy, especially of the Vedanta schools. It consists of:[4]
The Upanishads, known as Upadesha prasthana (injunctive texts), and the Sruti prasthana (the starting point of revelation)
The Brahma Sutras, known as Nyaya prasthana or Yukti prasthana (logical text)
The Bhagavad Gita, known as Sadhana prasthana (practical text), and the Smriti prasthana (the starting point of remembered tradition)
Quote:
i was attempting to get semantics out of the way early in the conversation, by relating the concept of energy in a purely potential state to many common delineations, so that we might actually discuss the possibility of deriving ethical methodologies from the laws of nature/physics/energy. so far i've failed, and we're still stuck in semantics.
Sorry if I sound too controversial but you happen to be mistaken in almost every sentence you come up with. As I said before, your conceptualizations are totally misguided. Consciousness is of course caused by energy and matter but that doesn't mean you can sit down and meditate as a way of doing scientific research.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted December 08, 2013 04:07 PM |
|
|
yogi said:
energy = potential or kinetic.
kinetic energy = matter.
This makes no sense.
Quote:
does it say "scientist" on your business card?
Yes, as a matter of fact, it does.
|
|
Gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted December 08, 2013 06:07 PM |
|
|
Kinetic energy = matter? I thought it was just energy that was actually in use... you know, movement. Which is why people like, you know, kineticists are people that study the way things move and how the transfer of energy affects said movement, as well as how moving bodies interact with non-moving or oppositely moving bodies...
Also, you did not give states of energy. Solid>liquid>Gas>Plasma are states of matter, as determined by how much energy is present within the system. The closest thing to energy within that system would be the electrons being stripped off the atoms in the plasma state... and even then, they have actual measurable mass, so even they are not energy but rather matter.
As well, "Masculine" and "feminine" are not states of energy nor are they states of mass. They can be qualities of living beings, but as microorganisms show, not all living things have a gender. Just like energy cannot be divided into "Fire" (combustion caused by the exothermic interaction of hydrogen, oxegen and carbon in a system where energy was added, causing H2 and the O2 to be converted into CO2 and H2O and shedding energy and heat into the system in the visual form of fire in the process) or "Ice" (And endothermic reaction where an object or area lacks the heat normally present to create a balanced equation, so energy is redistributed throughout the system until equilibrium is restored, often causing temperatures to shift until they are "colder" (just lower than they were before)), energy also cannot be labeled as "good" or "evil". In fact, without the express addition of religion or a moral edict, there is no way the physical world can even exhibit good or evil, let alone both. There is no "good" transfer of energy, or is there an "evil" one, it's merely a physical reaction that requires no moral justification in any part. i.e, water freezing and condensing in the atmosphere to form clouds, snow, rain, etc, is no more inherently good nor evil than water kinetically flowing downriver or a standing body of water shedding the high energy surface particles in a process known as evaporation. Such labels are arbitrary and silly at best, and claiming that they are scientific truth is somewhat insulting the the scientific field.
Also, on your "Some energy is used for memories (we actually don't know if this is scientifically provable or not, btw, seeing as we are using physical cards and devices to store data on electronic devices that can store it, and there are arguments that it is merely associative chemical reactions and the patterns of neurons in our brains...), therefore all energy has enough sentience to gain moral classifications" assertion. This is a logical fallacy, one in which you are applying the rules of a subset to the whole. Just like not all human beings are blond, not all priests are catholic (and in fact, not all catholics are priests) and all humans are not murderers, all energy does not have a memory. If the theory that specialized energy, or at least energy formed in certain patterns, being the key to memory is true, then only energy arranged in that manner is true. All energy might have the potential to be shaped in that way, but then, all catholics have the potential to be priests, all citizens have the potential to be murderers, and all humans have the potential to be black. Do you see the pattern here?
Edit: Sorry, my scientific formula were a little bit off there. Should have been a reaction of hydrogen, carbon and oxygen... fixed that now.
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted December 08, 2013 09:05 PM |
|
|
Gnomes2169 said:
Just like energy cannot be divided into "Fire" (combustion caused by the exothermic interaction of hydrogen, oxegen and carbon in a system where energy was added, causing H2 and the O2 to be converted into CO2 and H2O and shedding energy and heat into the system in the visual form of fire in the process) or "Ice" (And endothermic reaction where an object or area lacks the heat normally present to create a balanced equation, so energy is redistributed throughout the system until equilibrium is restored, often causing temperatures to shift until they are "colder" (just lower than they were before)), energy also cannot be labeled as "good" or "evil".
You've got some issues with your chemistry here. First stop: H2 and O2 aren't converted into carbon dioxide and water. Rigorously speaking, combustion doesn't require energy added, either, because the reaction is exothermic and spontaneous.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted December 08, 2013 11:09 PM |
|
|
Well, H2O at the very least is always in the end result of combustion (even if it is just in trace amounts), as the hydrogen and oxegen in the air will always bond, and it's soooort of hard to get pure oxegen in all but the most stringent of lab settings... though I suppose that there doesn't need to be a carbon source (though they are shockingly common) and I forgot about the elements that just burst into flames when they come in contact with one another (like all alkali metals and such...). But still, the point remains that the energy given off is not "fire" energy any more than an endothermic reaction is drawing in "cold" energy. It's just excess energy, if anything. 
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
yogi
Promising
Famous Hero
of picnics
|
|
posted December 09, 2013 03:23 AM |
|
Edited by yogi at 18:22, 18 Dec 2013.
|
artu said:
Things like "masculine and feminine as synonyms for the congruent, complimentary, opposing forces that comprise kinetic existence." Metaphors are built on association of resemblance, yet, they are not built on causality. For example, the astrologers say Mars (the red planet) is the planet of war for red symbolizes blood. But red (blood) can also symbolize the opposite, brotherhood, as it does in the French flag. Just like that, stars can be thought of feminine entities because they give birth to planets and all the elements that shape us, instead of masculine entities as opposed to black holes. The symmetry (the dualism) you are trying to build is completely based on arbitrary symbolism and can not be measured scientifically and therefore it is not even falsifiable.
i think you would be hard-pressed to find an entity or force devoid of duality. before you say unicellular organism - parent|child: or simple causality.
did you watch the video by garrett lisi, it's quite profound in a simple sort of way? doing so will only enhance both your understanding of particle physics, and this conversation.
most entities actually contain both opposing forces within (magnet), and at the same time have an external compliment (upside-down magnet). even light, our constant for measuring space|time, is both particle and wave. the only universal constant is this "relationship between opposites", even at the sub-atomic level. matter is just temporal states of energy. show me an element with no half-life and i'll consider the possibility of a natural entity with no compliment. time itself not only has space, but also denotes a movement from one point to another, past to future - two points which by definition are both related and opposing, or complimentary. these extremes are just that though, extremes in perspective. it is solely the mid-point, the relationship between these two - right now - that actually exists. in essence, we agree that there is no duality, but for different reasons. you simply deny the very obvious dance of opposites within and around you (please correct me if i'm wrong), and i say that they exist solely as the product of perspective. the collapsing wave if you will.
artu said:
It actually boils down to a Woody Allen joke, talking to a prostitute:
-You know that the universe is falling apart? You know what a black hole is?
-Yeah, baby. That's how I make my living.
while somewhat funny, not really applicable.
artu said:
Nothing's escaping me. It is just completely false. Even the life story of Marie Curie is enough to refute that. You don't have a point, you have a fantasy.
how is marie curie dying of radiation poisoning because she studied radiation proof that she wouldn't have made even stronger contributions had she not been ill and dying?
since when is any machine (or human being), that is not functioning optimally, capable of performing optimally? i challenge that the majority of the population isn't even aware of the very fine relationship between the inside and outside of their body, let alone gets the proper nutrition required to think clearly; and that this massive lack of self-understanding is one of the major roots of cultural imbalances today. all these external distractions are soo attractive though, we don't have time to figure ourselves out. i'll bet you can't meditate, and direct your mind inwards for more than a few seconds. cleaning and focusing a microscope is easy compared to honing ourselves. the universe as we study it is as it is because of the limited sensual faculties of being human. attempting to garner a clear understanding on anything before removing as many of these limitations as possible is, well, unscientific. hell, attempting to go to the stars while two-thirds of the planet lacks clean drinking water is unscientific; and connotative of a very unhealthy psychology. the heart of science is the pursuit of a better understanding of reality, for the embetterment of it. we've lost sight of the latter half, as economics funnels scientific curiosity into materialism, consumerism, and war. a lack of foresight and compassion are not signs of a healthy postulation. stephen hawking is a mental masturbator who wasted what little genious those nerves trapped in his skull provided on star fantasies, instead of helping to solve the world's problems. most "scientists" are lacking in basic humanity, let alone critical thinking skills.
artu said:
Not every scientific discovery is as observable as gravity for the naked eye. Besides, you don't see the theory of gravity, you only see things falling down, not the explanation why they do. Anyway, this is so ridiculous I don't know even where to begin.
just don't forget that by definition, whatever you choose to not test for yourself, you choose to believe on faith.
artu said:
I know it is not a deity itself, but it's not a philosophical school in the sense that Skeptics or Sofists are. It's based on religious Hindu text and their deities. Since Hinduism is like a maze of deities, I can't remember the exact details right now, but Vedanta is not universal like mathematics. It is organically tied to Hinduism, if you don't accept the existence of Hinduism (cultural), Vedanta means nothing:
All sub-schools of the vedanta propound their philosophy by interpreting the Prasthanatrayi, literally, three sources, the three canonical texts of Hindu philosophy, especially of the Vedanta schools. It consists of:[4]
The Upanishads, known as Upadesha prasthana (injunctive texts), and the Sruti prasthana (the starting point of revelation)
The Brahma Sutras, known as Nyaya prasthana or Yukti prasthana (logical text)
The Bhagavad Gita, known as Sadhana prasthana (practical text), and the Smriti prasthana (the starting point of remembered tradition)
actually, vedanta is indeed an extremely objective, and critical philosophy - one of mans' first. yes, it is heavily steeped in archaic cultural semantics, but this does not diminish it's validity in any way; any more than the wonderful contributions to medicine by the arab world are invalidated by the ancient muslim texts that produced them. it is only a roadblock to those that wish it to be. well versed men with well versed postulations do tend to unintentionally breed religions. personally, i consider modern "science" a religion, as there are many more people that put their faith in it than actually perform experiments. again, google vedanta + physics. or don't, and continue to waste our time.
artu said:
Sorry if I sound too controversial but you happen to be mistaken in almost every sentence you come up with. As I said before, your conceptualizations are totally misguided. Consciousness is of course caused by energy and matter but that doesn't mean you can sit down and meditate as a way of doing scientific research.
your assertion that i am mistaken is doing nothing but inhibiting you from grasping my meaning. i am attempting to use the simplest dialogue possible for ease of communication.
consciousness is no more the product of energy than time is of space, or energy is of matter, or particle is of wave, or male is of female, or chicken is of egg. as you pointed out, there is no duality. energy and matter are one and the same - just different units of measurement. time IS space. particle IS wave. chicken IS egg. willpower (consciousness) IS energy.
focusing attention inwards via meditation is no less scientific than focusing attention on anything else, especially once you've cleared away all the habitual physical and cultural instincts that plague us every day. how critical one is in their quest for understanding is purely a personal decision. i take absolutely nothing on faith, and tell myself nothing but the truth. if something is uncertain, it is left uncertain until tested to certainty.
edit:
you jump, and fall; he jumps, and falls; she jumps, and falls; i jump, and fall = gravity.
i meditate, and feel the potential state; he meditates, and feels the potential state; she meditates, and feels the potential state; you don't meditate = the rest of us are wrong?
there really isn't much to discuss - you were right; at least not until you do some cursory research.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted December 09, 2013 04:35 AM |
|
|
Again, these are all metaphors not calculations and copy/pasted arbitrarily into natural phenomenon. Masculine and feminine are not opposing forces, they are genders. And describing the universe in such terms is anthropomorphic, just like the Abrahamic religions' God being a father figure is anthropomorphic. You skip away the essence of my objection and keep doing the same thing. You also don't seem to care about the fact that an actual scientist says what you write does not make sense AT ALL.
Quote:
how is marie curie dying of radiation poisoning because she studied radiation proof that she wouldn't have made even stronger contributions had she not been ill and dying?
You had not said she could have made stronger contributions, you said, and with strong emphasis I might add, " "truly objective propositions can only be put forth by extremely healthy people." You are argument-shifting.
Quote:
since when is any machine (or human being), that is not functioning optimally, capable of performing optimally? i challenge that the majority of the population isn't even aware of the very fine relationship between the inside and outside of their body, let alone gets the proper nutrition required to think clearly; and that this massive lack of self-understanding is one of the major roots of cultural imbalances today. all these external distractions are soo attractive though, we don't have time to figure ourselves out. i'll bet you can't meditate, and direct your mind inwards for more than a few seconds. cleaning and focusing a microscope is easy compared to honing ourselves. the universe as we study it is at it is because of the limited sensual faculties of being human. attempting to garner a clear understanding on anything before removing as many of these limitations as possible is, well, unscientific. hell, attempting to go to the stars while two-thirds of the planet lacks clean drinking water is unscientific; and connotative of a very unhealthy psychology. the heart of science is the pursuit of a better understanding of reality, for the embetterment of it. we've lost sight of the latter half, as economics funnels scientific curiosity into materialism, consumerism, and war. a lack of foresight and compassion are not signs of a healthy postulation. stephen hawking is a mental masturbator who wasted what little genious those nerves trapped in his skull provided on star fantasies, instead of helping to solve the world's problems.
This is politics, not everything in here are things that I disagree with (I also think we need to spend more time figuring ourselves out, not through ancient religious texts though, they only have anthropological and literary value to me) but still just politics. It's also quite irrelevant. Whether researching distant galaxies is a priority or not has nothing to do with the question of what the scientific method for that is. It does not change the fact that what you're claiming is pseudo-science, trying to synthesize ancient religion with modern science.
I have nothing against meditation or introspective contemplation. If they make you more productive and more perceptive, all the better. They are not a method of objective research or in anyway science though. Trying to squeeze them in as if they are, does not make your perspective broader, it only makes it incoherent.
Quote:
just don't forget that by definition, whatever you choose to not test for yourself, you choose to believe on faith.
Not really. Sure, there is a level of trust you put in other people's work, but that's practically true for anything and inevitable. If I open a map and look where does the Amazon river start, end, which countries it flows through, I'm simply learning information second hand. Am I being faithful by just looking at a map? No. Having faith is different than gathering information, given you have the proper formation and filter to leave out the disinformation and BS. Talking about BS, we again come to this:
Quote:
actually, vedanta is indeed an extremely objective, and critical philosophy - one of mans' first. yes, it is heavily steeped in archaic cultural semantics, but this does not diminish it's validity in any way; any more than the wonderful contributions to medicine by the arab world are invalidated by the ancient muslim texts that produced them. it is only a roadblock to those that wish it to be. well versed men with well versed postulations do tend to unintentionally breed religions. personally, i consider modern "science" a religion, as there are many more people that put their faith in it than actually perform experiments. again, google vedanta + physics. or don't, and continue to waste our time.
You are exceptionally talented in mixing up apples and oranges. Somebody contributing to medicine or chemistry or whatever, being a part of the Arab world or even being a Muslim (which is usually the case since they are usually from 11th to 14th century or so) does not make that contribution Islamic. Those scholars did not use Quran to produce that contribution. Newton was a Christian, we don't call gravity Christian science though, do we? I'm not at all suprised that you consider modern science a religion because you haven't got the slightest clue on what differentiates science from religion. Hence, we have this eclectic, incoherent medley of ancient religion, mystical metaphors, pseudo-scientific language and politics as an excuse for a methodology.
|
|
yogi
Promising
Famous Hero
of picnics
|
|
posted December 09, 2013 07:08 AM |
|
Edited by yogi at 07:10, 09 Dec 2013.
|
Gnomes2169 said:
Kinetic energy = matter?
e=mc2
Gnomes2169 said:
Also, you did not give states of energy. Solid>liquid>Gas>Plasma are states of matter, as determined by how much energy is present within the system.
mc2=e
Gnomes2169 said:
The closest thing to energy within that system would be the electrons being stripped off the atoms in the plasma state... and even then, they have actual measurable mass, so even they are not energy but rather matter.
e=mc2
Gnomes2169 said:
As well, "Masculine" and "feminine" are not states of energy nor are they states of mass. They can be qualities of living beings, but as microorganisms show, not all living things have a gender. Just like energy cannot be divided into "Fire" (combustion caused by the exothermic interaction of hydrogen, oxegen and carbon in a system where energy was added, causing H2 and the O2 to be converted into CO2 and H2O and shedding energy and heat into the system in the visual form of fire in the process) or "Ice" (And endothermic reaction where an object or area lacks the heat normally present to create a balanced equation, so energy is redistributed throughout the system until equilibrium is restored, often causing temperatures to shift until they are "colder" (just lower than they were before)),
the different states of matter = simply distinctions in particle density, formation, and excitation.
particles themselves are comprised of energy.
mc2=e
Gnomes2169 said:
energy also cannot be labeled as "good" or "evil".
no, but it can be labeled as balanced, or imbalanced, depending upon the perspective one takes in the system. i propose that there is a perspective which most clearly reveals imbalances - the potential state.
Gnomes2169 said:
In fact, without the express addition of religion or a moral edict, there is no way the physical world can even exhibit good or evil, let alone both. There is no "good" transfer of energy, or is there an "evil" one, it's merely a physical reaction that requires no moral justification in any part. i.e, water freezing and condensing in the atmosphere to form clouds, snow, rain, etc, is no more inherently good nor evil than water kinetically flowing downriver or a standing body of water shedding the high energy surface particles in a process known as evaporation. Such labels are arbitrary and silly at best, and claiming that they are scientific truth is somewhat insulting the the scientific field.
unless i am mistaken, the point of this thread is to determine whether or not we can derive an ethical code from the laws of nature/physics?
Gnomes2169 said:
Also, on your "Some energy is used for memories (we actually don't know if this is scientifically provable or not, btw, seeing as we are using physical cards and devices to store data on electronic devices that can store it, and there are arguments that it is merely associative chemical reactions and the patterns of neurons in our brains...), therefore all energy has enough sentience to gain moral classifications" assertion. This is a logical fallacy, one in which you are applying the rules of a subset to the whole. Just like not all human beings are blond, not all priests are catholic (and in fact, not all catholics are priests) and all humans are not murderers, all energy does not have a memory. If the theory that specialized energy, or at least energy formed in certain patterns, being the key to memory is true, then only energy arranged in that manner is true. All energy might have the potential to be shaped in that way, but then, all catholics have the potential to be priests, all citizens have the potential to be murderers, and all humans have the potential to be black. Do you see the pattern here?
i never used the word memory. in so many words, i said that the material word of kinetic energy and spacial/temporal distinctions (including thoughts), is actually comprised of potential energy; and that when one stills their thoughts and directs their awareness inward past the senses, the temporal world slows to a halt, and primal awareness aligns with this core potential state: enabling one to experience it as matter of factly as jumping to feel gravity. usually our awareness is focused on the external, temporal experience, but the inner potential state is quite accessible as well. everything in the universe has this center point, of energy transference, generally referred to as the center of gravity. it is from this point that an entity "expands into existence" (or attracts others, in newtonian terms), the extremeties of which being where the line blurs between it and it's opposite (the intermingling of fields).
i feel like you folks really need to wrap your heads around the implications of relativity. mass and kinetic energy are simply two different units of measurement, just as space and time: each extreme being defined by it's compliment. the entity being measured, the "=" sign, is potential energy.
____________
yogi - class: monk | status: healthy
"Lol we are HC'ers.. The same tribe.. Guy!" ~Ghost
|
|
yogi
Promising
Famous Hero
of picnics
|
|
posted December 09, 2013 07:27 AM |
|
|
Corribus said:
This makes no sense.
which part - that energy is either potential or kinetic, or that matter and kinetic energy are simply interchangeable units of measurement?
Corribus said:
Yes, as a matter of fact, it does.
scientists don't refer to themselves as "scientists", what field(s) do you specialize in... neurochemical psychology, biological chemistry, political sciences? i'm a physicist working as a horticultural engineer at the moment.
____________
yogi - class: monk | status: healthy
"Lol we are HC'ers.. The same tribe.. Guy!" ~Ghost
|
|
Gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted December 09, 2013 08:20 AM |
|
|
... I'm not going to grace any of your snarky e=mc^2 (you keep forgetting the "^", so what you are writing is e=mc*2, not squared) comments with an answer, as there is no way to answer them simply because they are not responses to anything you quoted.
Just because matter is composed of energy does not mean you can use improper labels for things, such as the meaning of the word Kinetic energy, as kinetic energy itself is not matter in any way, but rather the momentum and energy being displaced by said matter. Also, just because you can convert things in between both states does not mean they are the exact same thing. You can theoretically "purify" a gold alloy to pure gold, just as you could theoretically make the energy contained in matter more "pure", but in both cases you have a different product from what you started with.
Imbalanced equations, while present in nature, do not last for long, as equations actively are fixed to balance themselves. Therefore labeling things "Balanced" and "Imbalanced" in a natural setting is pointless, as via the law of entropy we know that a system will always be moving closer to a stable 0 unless acted on by an outside force. As well, how does this apply to there being "Masculine" or "feminine" energy? I am so very curious about it.
Quote:
unless i am mistaken, the point of this thread is to determine whether or not we can derive an ethical code from the laws of nature/physics?
Yes, not whether or not we can fuse physics and religion to determine if there can be an ethical code derived from physics... and yes, meta-physical energy is equivalent to a metaphysical entity when it comes to involving religion. If it is something that cannot be proven in a controlled study, but rather a mindset and a belief in some part of that mindset that must be attained, then it is religion or belief, not physics, science and objective math.
Let me highlight the big flashing "this is religious doctrine" signs in your argument for you.
Quote:
in so many words, i said that the material word of kinetic energy and spacial/temporal distinctions (including thoughts), is actually comprised of potential energy; and that when one stills their thoughts and directs their awareness inward past the senses, the temporal world slows to a halt, and primal awareness aligns with this core potential state: enabling one to experience it as matter of factly as jumping to feel gravity. usually our awareness is focused on the external, temporal experience, but the inner potential state is quite accessible as well. everything in the universe has this center point, of energy transference, generally referred to as the center of gravity. it is from this point that an entity "expands into existence" (or attracts others, in newtonian terms), the extremeties of which being where the line blurs between it and it's opposite (the intermingling of fields).
And here is a hint, the part I didn't bold wasn't bolded because it does not rely on the mysticism relationship of a different world or dimension existing outside of the physical being acted upon by a mind or entity. It also does not rely upon potential states of consciousness (a very, very Hindu/ Buddhist belief...)and can actually be tested... though again, it is debatable whether the energy itself creates consciousness and stores memories in the way the only scientific statement you presented states. It could just as easily be the interactions between neuro chemicals and associations between object and emotions, and in fact most studies point to said chemicals and the connections between neurons being what stores memories and creates consciousness. And yes, I know matter is built from energy from a quantum level, but it might as well be a difference in state as large as the difference between space and a piece of titanium or lead... so vastly compressed and different that it no longer can be called the same thing. Different to the point where extra energy is actually damaging to the system unless added in small amounts (carbohydrates and such vs. electric shocks/ lightning bolts).
Also, the center of gravity is a person or object's balancing point, there is nothing mystic about it, it's just about where their mass is basically split into its halfway points. It's simple science, it's easy science, and you are applying qualities to it (memory and connection to the universe, I think) that it does not possess in a hard-science world. You do not get to redefine it, as you are not allowed to redefine kinetic energy for the sake of this argument. Both are already accepted terms in the scientific community, and there is no need to expand them past their current definitions.
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted December 10, 2013 04:37 AM |
|
|
yogi said:
Corribus said:
Yes, as a matter of fact, it does.
scientists don't refer to themselves as "scientists", what field(s) do you specialize in... neurochemical psychology, biological chemistry, political sciences? i'm a physicist working as a horticultural engineer at the moment.
My employer has positions which are simply called "staff scientists". If you want to know my expertise, I hold a doctorate in physical chemistry and did my dissertation in molecular physics and spectroscopy. These days I do more work in materials physics. Therefore:
yogi said:
Corribus said:
This makes no sense.
which part - that energy is either potential or kinetic, or that matter and kinetic energy are simply interchangeable units of measurement?
I know what energy is and I know about mass-energy equivalency. It's all the mysticism you layer on top of it that makes no sense whatsoever.
A much bigger question though is what any of this has to do with good or evil, so let's please try to stay on topic.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
yogi
Promising
Famous Hero
of picnics
|
|
posted December 11, 2013 04:53 AM |
|
Edited by yogi at 05:31, 11 Dec 2013.
|
Gnomes2169 said:
, as kinetic energy itself is not matter in any way, but rather the momentum and energy being displaced by said matter.
i feel like you need to be reminded that according to "western science" the only point in the universe of potential energy was the big bang. the entire universe - space - is a movement in time: all bodies are in motion. all energy we experience is kinetic, passed down via the inertia of the big bang. outside of a highly meditative state that is - i, and many "eastern scientists" propound that sheer experience itself requires time: that there is a point of access to the universal potential state within all things.
oh wait, then einstein came along and brought us this very "eastern" notion:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence
the material universe takes time to be aware of to exist. space = time. awareness (observer) = e. m = e/c^2 (so sue me i dont want to hit shift+6 every time i write one of the most common equations in physics; i do a lot of coding, this is a forum). i do value the time you put into this conversation however, so hopefully you can look past my lack of capital letters and symbols. once one has spent as much time coding in shift-symbols as i have, typing for conversation becomes much more enjoyable without such complications. i apologize if this depreciates the value of my posts in your eyes, it is regrettable.
kinetic energy is the measurement of how much universal potential energy an object retains from the big bang (or from some other artificially postulated, relatively restful state, for the sake of some localized experiment and standard). we humans generally don't incorporate the kinetic energy we receive from the movement of the earth and other astrophysical bodies in our equations relating to a "state of rest"; and instead use the term "potential energy" incorrectly all the time in reference to an artificially postulated, relatively restful state. we measure the distance from this restful state by the speed of light because this is the limitation on our scale of perceiving the material universe as humans (a universal constant for the measurement of space/time we can all agree upon); instead of using a constant related to the potential energy of the big bang, as this would yield very little data of use to us as humans here and now in the physical world. this is because we do in fact experience a generally restful state due to the earth's gravity. the faculties of the observer define the observed. however, all bodies are truly in motion (time itself), and all energy in the universe at this point is kinetic; except the possible dip in the pool of potentiality from a highly meditative state. awareness is much quicker than light: potential energy is the precursor to kinetic, by definition (the big bang). potentiality inherently implies a state of "can happen"; not "has happened", or "is happening".
as a complimentary experiment, focusing on splitting particles of space yields the same result as splitting awareness from time: underlying potential energy sustains both. watch the garrett lisi video.
it seems as if you are forgetting time in your perspective of the equation. i think what you mean to say is that "potential energy itself is not matter, but rather the energy displaced by said matter." kinetic energy would be the energy that said matter acquires from being displaced.
having said all that, and now that you've watched the video: do we agree that mass is simply a unit of measuring the density and "spin" of energy?
Gnomes2169 said:
Also, just because you can convert things in between both states does not mean they are the exact same thing.
wat?
ok i'll try anyway -
yes, it does. it means there is only one thing, that can be in two states, (ala light). in this case: potential energy can either be defined in spacial material terms, or temporal kinetic terms. they are two units of measurement for the same thing, just like particle and wave for light.
again it seems like you are forgetting time. the only difference between mass and energy is the time variable associated with the speed of perception.
m = e/c2
the mass of an object multiplied by how fast it's moving (based upon the speed of light [kinetic energy] in a vacuum - as it's much more applicable to our scale of perception as humans than the potential energy of the big bang) yields it's relative kinetic energy. this is why we keep building more powerful colliders, to get particle collisions to occur closer to the speed of light.
the reason sub-atomic particle fission yields so much energy is because those particles are only a few steps away from the potential state (having come into existence not long after the big bang), and they contain a relative percentage of this immense power.
again, mass is simply a unit of measuring the density and inertia of energy.
Gnomes2169 said:
Imbalanced equations, while present in nature, do not last for long, as equations actively are fixed to balance themselves. Therefore labeling things "Balanced" and "Imbalanced" in a natural setting is pointless, as via the law of entropy we know that a system will always be moving closer to a stable 0 unless acted on by an outside force.
i think you just solved the thread, and validated my assertion. by the law of entropy alone should we follow - towards balance.
Gnomes2169 said:
As well, how does this apply to there being "Masculine" or "feminine" energy? I am so very curious about it.
the masculine and feminine halves of a species stem from the inherent dual nature of the space/time universe (causality).
Gnomes2169 said:
Yes, not whether or not we can fuse physics and religion to determine if there can be an ethical code derived from physics...
i consider the attempt itself a practice in both religious and philosophical thought, but have been attempting to eliminate any scientific/religious semantics that might hinder the conversation. personally, i don't have a problem with the notion of religions. they are generally just the lay-mans' attempt at understanding scientific postulates, and they get distorted over time, usually by political powers.
Gnomes2169 said:
and yes, meta-physical energy is equivalent to a metaphysical entity when it comes to involving religion. If it is something that cannot be proven in a controlled study, but rather a mindset and a belief in some part of that mindset that must be attained, then it is religion or belief, not physics, science and objective math.
Let me highlight the big flashing "this is religious doctrine" signs in your argument for you.
And here is a hint, the part I didn't bold wasn't bolded because it does not rely on the mysticism relationship of a different world or dimension existing outside of the physical being acted upon by a mind or entity. It also does not rely upon potential states of consciousness (a very, very Hindu/ Buddhist belief...)
you call it a belief simply because you have not performed the same experiment, and drawn a conclusion for yourself. i call it a postulation based on an extremely critical experiment. meditation is not a mystical religious concept. the fact that you think it is places this conversation at a stand-still until you do some more research. thus far the majority of this conversation has been as one sided as it has because no one has bothered with the background research i've provided that will help clarify an understanding of the subject matter.
very similar to directing the awareness through the eyes at a magnifying lens so intently in the study of the laws of physics that too few nerves are attached to the ears to hear someone call your name, meditation is the directing of the awareness inward on those very same laws governing our bodies and minds, so intently that your nerves ultimately recede from all the senses. whether the eyes are open or not is irrelevant, but the exercise is much more pertinent when they are open. a state of meditation is attained via a voluntary directing of the nerves, no different than jumping, and feels as equally sensual. intriguingly, when one does direct all their energy inward behind the experience of the senses, and sight and material space finally fade from awareness, time collapses too. this is why the eyes being open is pertinent, because the experiment reveals that while time stops, consciousness continues in the purely potential state. all that's left is the stream of consciousness. makes sense though. i will add that the physical feeling of rising throughout this whole experience as the nerves recede from the extremities of the body up into the brain is quite euphoric. takes seriously strict attention to one's body and diet, a lot of energy, discipline, and practice though.
Gnomes2169 said:
and can actually be tested... though again, it is debatable whether the energy itself creates consciousness and stores memories in the way the only scientific statement you presented states. It could just as easily be the interactions between neuro chemicals and associations between object and emotions, and in fact most studies point to said chemicals and the connections between neurons being what stores memories and creates consciousness.
memories and consciousness are different. again, i never used the word memories. they indeed are a product of time, and thus must also be the product of material interactions. consciousness however is a noun denoting "immaterial awareness", not it's movement into thoughts and memories: akin to potential energy being the "motionless, immaterial force" that precedes kinetic momentum.
Gnomes2169 said:
And yes, I know matter is built from energy from a quantum level, but it might as well be a difference in state as large as the difference between space and a piece of titanium or lead... so vastly compressed and different that it no longer can be called the same thing.
but it can be, and it is. just as a lake is synonymous with a drop of water: distinct in name and frame of reference alone.
the aim of theoretical physics at this point is the search for a ToE that works at both atomic and quantum levels. are you of the opinion that this search is pointless because the atomic and quantum levels are different perspectives?
Gnomes2169 said:
Different to the point where extra energy is actually damaging to the system unless added in small amounts (carbohydrates and such vs. electric shocks/ lightning bolts).
wut?
Gnomes2169 said:
Also, the center of gravity is a person or object's balancing point, there is nothing mystic about it, it's just about where their mass is basically split into its halfway points. It's simple science, it's easy science, and you are applying qualities to it (memory and connection to the universe, I think) that it does not possess in a hard-science world.
again, i never used the word memories. however, an object's center of gravity is most certainly the point from which it relates with other material bodies via the laws of physics. i agree, simple science.
so i think Gnomes here solved the thread by bringing up the law of entropy, but i'll let you folks decide.
for me, this is getting somewhat tiresome. i'm not sure how much more of this i'll be entertaining. i do plan on replying to artu and corribus'es last posts. perhaps if somebody checks out some of the background research i've provided a better conversation will brew.
here, i'll make it easy:
we've got an amazing ted video by garrett lisi -
http://www.ted.com/talks/garrett_lisi_on_his_theory_of_everything.html
a few great authors -
amit goswami - http://www.amitgoswami.org/
fritjof capra: the tao of physics - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tao_of_Physics
pd ouspensky: tertium organum - http://www.sacred-texts.com/eso/to/
a couple searches -
vedanta physics - https://www.google.com/#q=vedanta+physics
meditation - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meditation
"Meditation and intelligence
Recent investigations of meditation have linked it to increased intelligence through physical growth of the brain. Researchers at Harvard, Yale, and MIT conducted brain scans that reveal an increased thickness in the parts of the brain that deal with attention and sensory input processing. Using magnetic resonance imaging, they visualized variations in the thickness of the cerebral cortex of experienced Buddhist Insight meditation practitioners. The data show that regular practice of meditation is associated with increased thickness in a subset of cortical regions related to somatosensory, auditory, visual and interoceptive processing. Further, regular meditation practice may slow age-related thinning of the frontal cortex, leading to longer lasting executive functioning.[179]
Another study investigated the effects of Transcendental Meditation on Cattell’s Culture Fair Intelligence Test (CFIT) and Hick’s reaction time, which are both correlated with general intelligence. In the study 100 men and women who meditated showed significant improvement on the tests compared to the control group of non-meditators, which showed no improvement. The results indicated that participation in meditation results in improvements to intelligence.[180]
A study by Keith Wallace, David Johnson, and Paul Mills investigated the relationship between the paired H-reflex and the academic success of students practicing Transcendental Meditation. The paired H-reflex correlated significantly with GPA, but not with sat scores or any of three IQ measurements. The results suggest that meditation may be a useful indicator of academic achievement by "improving awareness and wakefullness".[181]
Self-discipline, a trait linked to the practice of meditation has also been linked to increases in IQ scores. In a behavioral delay-of-gratification task with 8th graders, self-discipline accounted for more than twice as much variance as IQ in final grades, high school selection, school attendance, hours spent doing homework, hours spent watching television and the hour of the day students began their homework. The effect of self-discipline on final grades stayed even when controlling for grades, achievement-test scores, and measured IQ.[182]"
one more video that should not be dismissed until you look up this mans conversations with buckminster fuller -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElEzszR6ig4
and a partridge in a pear tree.
|
| |
|
|
